On Sunday, April 21, 2024, at 5:30PM Eastside Baptist Church will consider a Constitution/By-Law change. It is no small thing for a church to consider changes like this. Constitution/By-Laws are important documents that instruct the congregation why they gather, how they gather, and how they govern themselves. Over time Constitutions, By-Laws, and policies may need to be considered for functioning compliance and ongoing reforming to God by the standard of His Word. Eastside has acknowledged that she is past due on this important work.
The motion before the church on April 21, 2024 is:
“Should Eastside Baptist Church repeal the 1925 New Hampshire Confession as its Articles of Faith and replace it with the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession with noted amendments? (Including both the original preface and the appendix on Baptism written in 1677)“
I will publish several frequently asked questions (FAQ) that have been asked over the past year while studying the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession. The answers to these questions are my opinions and an attempt to explain why I’m in favor of recommending this change.
Question:
Q: How does Eastside Baptist Church Benefit by updating Addendum Number Two?
A: The 1925 New Hampshire Confession (Baptist Faith and Message) is a helpful concise statement. The 1689 Second London Baptist Confession is a more robust confession statement and shows the evangelical proximity with the Westminster (Historic Presbyterian) and Savoy (Historic Congregationalist) brethren. The 1925 New Hampshire Confession may limit our affiliation with other networks and denominations we may choose to associate with in the future. The 1689 Baptist Confession gives us more options to consider.
Question:
Q: Do members have to be in agreement with the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession in order to be members?
A: No. Membership requirements are not based upon a confession statement. We have a Church Covenant that members are required to agree with based on their relationship to Christ Jesus.
Question:
Q: Does a pastor/elder need to agree with the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession to hold office?
A: Currently, there is no requirement that a pastor/elder hold to any confession statement. Should we adopt the 1689, I recommend we insert a qualification in the Constitution/By-Laws that a pastor/elder should hold to a confession statement requirement of the church.
Question:
Q: Does a deacon need to agree with the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession to hold office?
A: Currently, there is no requirement that a deacon hold to a confession statement. It would be expected that a deacon be a member of EBC and meet the criteria of a member.
Question:
Q: Why remove the word “elect” from Chapter 10, Paragraph 3?
A: I suspect Christians have asked about children dying in infancy for the past two thousand years. I suspect people throughout world history have wondered about the eternal estate of children or anyone incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. Our Baptist ancestors answer this question in step with others in their time by saying “Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved…” I agree that all of the elect will be saved. The statement may be sufficient. Many theologians argue that all children are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit. To remove the word “elect” from the statement does not change the confession here. It is an attempt to leave the things of God to God. The things that are man’s, God has been clear to reveal them. This is a statement of submission, we don’t know how God does this, but it is God’s pleasure to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, to whomever he wants. What we have clarity on is that the offspring of Adam who will be saved must repent and believe the gospel.
Question:
Q: Why remove the claim that the Pope is “the” antichrist?
A: First, the fact is, this is a claim that all of the primary confession statements make. The use of definite articles such as “the” may be misleading. Chapter 26 of the 1689 Baptist Confession is about the church. Paragraph 4 is about the head of the church. Our Baptist ancestors properly state that Jesus Christ is the head of the church. I recommend inserting “as described by the Bible alone.” to clarify we do not believe any temporal man can in any way serve as the representative of Christ. Only the Holy Spirit can do this. The Pope may well be an antichrist but I cannot claim he is the antichrist. This chapter and paragraph are thoroughly protestant, rejecting the Pope of Roman Catholicism as the head of the church.
Question:
Q: Does removing the word “only” in Chapter 29, Paragraph 2 mean we may consider the practice of infant baptism?
A: No, as a matter of fact, the paragraph would remain a strong statement about who should be baptized. My conscience would not allow me to baptize an infant. My conscience is convinced by Scripture that the proper subjects for the ordinance of baptism are disciples. I believe the statement is clear without the word “only” and by removing the word we are keeping with the spirit of the appendix On Baptism which called those who baptized their infants “brethren”. I agree, they are brothers and sisters. We do not forbid them from the Lord’s Table with us, we should not view them as unequal in Christ. We think our Westminster and Savoy brothers and sisters are wrong to apply the practice of “baptism” to their infants. To be clear, with respect, we do not agree with them on this practice, but at the same time, we are not saying that they are practicing heresy.
Apply the reasoning in other areas. We hold to primary thoughts on eschatology with many considerations – giving room for brothers and sisters to think differently, even disagree over. We are with brothers and sisters throughout church history who may or may not agree upon everything related to eschatology. In our fellowship alone, we have many members who hold different views.
I think we can hold our position on Baptism and be respectful at the same time, for the glory of God. I am thankful that our brothers and sisters among us who view baptism differently than we do have extended this same kindness toward us.
Question:
Q: Can someone baptized as an infant be a member of a Baptist Church?
A: Yes, if the constitution and/or bylaws provide a provision for this. The 1689 Baptist Confession is not a church policy manual per se. We will begin working on an updated constitution and bylaws soon. This decision would be for this local church to weigh in on. Where this is a fair question, it is not within the scope of consideration at this time.
Question:
Q: Is it true that you’ve been baptizing infants?
A: This is outside the scope of this action, but I consider it a fair question and one I’m willing to give clarity. First, it is not true that I’ve been baptizing infants. Whoever has spread this is misinformed, a blatant liar, or worse. I desire to serve the local church with conviction and humble zeal as a man under the authority of Christ, the head of the church. There have indeed been infants from our church baptized at Westminster and Dutch Reformed churches. I am aware of each of them. The fathers of these children have met with the elders to discuss this. These parents have expressed their convictions to have their infants baptized. We have not agreed to do any such baptism or participate in the ceremony of any of these baptisms. I have been present for two of these at a CREC church in Meridian, ID (Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches – a denomination that allows for both Westminster and Baptist churches to be in Christian fellowship without violating the conscience of either). I’m willing to make this accommodation so as to not violate the conscience of either. Should EBC want to affiliate with the CREC in the future we could continue as a confessionally baptistic church without violating our Baptist confession.
Question:
Q: Why act on adopting the 1689 before appointing additional elder(s)?
A: We began the consideration of this confession statement before the need for additional elder(s) presented itself. Leaving the SBC is what presented the question of our Constitution and By-laws in the first place. A reworked Constitution and By-laws is past due. I think the Articles of Faith (Confession) will set the course for the elders we appoint and the Constitution we work on. I’m appealing to God to give us the grace to work on this with unity and I beseech the congregation for patience.
Question:
Q: Why are we becoming more liturgical and does it have anything to do with the 1689 Baptist Confession?
A: No. The word liturgical is simply a recognized order of a public gathering, usually attached to a religious service. We have always been a liturgical church. The difference is that we have not published the order of service giving the idea that we don’t have a liturgy. Our liturgy has changed over the years. A few examples: We rarely have special (solo) music in our worship service because we believe the worship service is a corporate worship service. We give an opportunity to believing men to edify the church body at the conclusion of our worship services. We extend communion on a weekly basis as part of our covenant renewal. We open every service singing a Psalm, reading that Psalm, and confessing private and corporate sins. We stand for the reading of Scripture. We kneel or sit while confessing sins to signify humility, we stand to read Scritpure and sing to signify respect for God. We lift our hands during the doxology to represent our worship and devotion to God. We say “amen” at the end of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs to express agreement. We have at least five times in any given Sunday service where we pray. We catechize the children in theology with a rhetorical methodology. It may be fair to say we have been liturgical for a very long time, It is also true that we have not been in the practice of publishing the liturgy. Expect this to become more normal. The order of our service has little to do with the 1689 Baptist Confession.
No Comments